Favorite Athletes of All Time

If one can't meet Michelle, he should at least meet her mayo.

The other day I came across this fantastic picture (left) that my debate buddies (David Maus and David Dickmeyer) from Bethel and I took with a jar of mayo once owned by none other than the great figure skater, Michelle Kwan.  While meeting the jar of mayo was an exhilarating experience, I couldn't help feeling a little disappointed about not having met Michelle, herself.  That's a little odd, right?  That a female athlete would be on my list of athletes I'd like to meet?

Well, Michelle is not alone.  I've decided to compile my list of my top 30 favorite athletes of all time.  This goes for any sport, any era, any point in their career, and any gender.  Keep in mind that this isn't a list of who I think were the greatest athletes in their sport or even the greatest at the time they were playing.  It's only a list of who was my favorite.  The ones I cheered for and the ones who shaped me as a fan; the ones who had a significant impact on my life.  I'd like to hear some who you'd all put on your lists.

30. Nomar Garciaparra.  I was a Nomar fan before the term "Red Sox Nation" was coined and the BoSox became my 2nd most hated team.  Also, he married Mia Hamm.  Pretty solid.

29. Vitor Belfort.  This is the young, pre-Zuffa-UFC Belfort.  He was unbelievable and incredibly entertaining to watch.

28. Reggie White.  He'd probably be slightly higher on this list if he hadn't played for the Packers.

27. Michelle Kwan. America's sweetheart.  I could never understand (and never will) why Jon Alexander insisted on rooting for Tara Lipinski (right/down) over her (left).  Come on, Jon.  Hasn't the time come for you to admit you were wrong?

26. Lloy Ball.  Long-time setter for the US national team.  Was the best in the world for a while and led the US men to a gold in '08.  I got to meet him once!

25. Art Monk.  I had a brief stint as a kid when I was a Redskins fan, and Monk was easily my favorite.  My love for him was very much confirmed during his Hall of Fame acceptance speech.  Amazing!

24. Napoleon Kaufman.  I loved watching him at UW and in the NFL, even though he got a raw deal in Oakland.  Never got the carries he deserved.

23. John Stockton.  Shortish, averageish white dude.  Dominates the record books?  How can I not love him?

22. Calvin Johnson.  Absolute stud, but humble.  The vast majority of people on this list are known for being great people, and not just great athletes (with some notable exceptions).

21. Jason Hanson. He's been a great Lion for so long that I can barely remember a time in my life when I wasn't a Jason Hanson fan.  So yes...a kicker really did make my list.

20. Misty May-Treanor.  I followed her collegiate career, where it was pretty obvious that she was going to be great.  I was a little disappointed when she moved to the beach, but then she became the greatest woman ever there, so my disappointment left.

19. Ichiro Suzuki.  I've been a Mariners fan since the late 80s.  Ichiro is the 2nd greatest Mariner of all time and their comeback into relevance in the early 2000s was due to his arrival.  Shame he's a Yankee now.

18. Roy Jones, Jr.  I got to watch a lot of his fights live, which was great.  For a long time he was in the same position Jon Jones is in now - unbeatable and with the only blemish on his record coming from the fact that he was slightly TOO dominant in a fight.  He was the greatest fighter I've ever watched.  Any weight class, boxing or MMA.

17. Randall Cunningham.  Until he became a Viking.  But man, was he fun to watch.  Great guy, too.

 16. Shawn Kemp.  Other than Vince Carter, probably the best in-game dunker I've ever watched.  Blake Griffin's working on claiming that title as well.  But I grew up a Sonics fan, so the combination of his explosiveness with his Sonicness gives him a high place in my book.  Then he got fat and fathered 74 children.

15. Matthew Stafford.  The long-awaited messiah of the Detroit Lions.  I'm sure by the time his career is over, both he and Calvin will be much, much higher on this list.
14. Eric Bienemy.  The first true favorite college football player I ever had.  I was in love with the Buffs in the late 80s/early 90s and I still remember watching them beat Notre Dame in the national championship when Rocket Ismael's kick return for a TD to win got called back for clipping.  Wow.

13. Darrell Green.  Other than Deion, the best DB I've ever watched.  Great person through his entire career.  Though a Redskin, he was my favorite defensive player in the league.

12. Kurt Warner.  True underdog, undrafted free agent becomes the savior of 2 teams!  He's a great man on top of it all.  Noticing a theme for my favorites?  Character counts.

11. Andre Agassi.  And just as soon as I say "character counts" I go straight to the guy who admitted to doing meth to keep his career afloat.  It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

10. Chris Spielman.  My favorite Lions defensive player ever.  So consistent.  Old school LB.  He also set a lot of sack records for me on Tecmo Super Bowl.

9. Steve Atwater.  I was raised as a Broncos fan (for my AFC team), and Atwater was the most entertaining safety (maybe ever) to watch.  You need - NEED - to watch this video!  He was the greatest pure hitter I've ever seen.  Easily. 

8. Peyton Manning.  Such a classy guy.  Smartest player I've ever watched.  I love seeing him back this year.

7. Marcus Camby.  He is my favorite college basketball player of all time.  I loved him at UMass.

6. John Elway.  Like I said - I was a big Broncos fan (2nd only to my Lions) and Elway was what made them tick.  In my opinion, he's the 2nd greatest QB of all time, right behind Peyton Manning.

5. Corey Schlessinger.  Yes, a fullback is my 5th favorite athlete of all time.  You have to understand, though, that I was a bit of a Nebraska Cornhuskers fan in the early-mid 90s.  Corey Schlessinger almost single-handedly won the Huskers the national title against Miami in '95.  Then he was drafted by the Lions and was Barry's lead blocker for the start of his career.  The perfect storm of fan-dom.  College favorite to pro favorite.

4. Karch Kiraly.  Greatest volleyball player of all time, maybe both indoors and beach.  But definitely beach.  I used to love watching the classic matchups on NBC on Sundays in the summer between he and his partner Kent Steffes against Mike Dodd and Mike Whitmarsh.

3. David Robinson.  The Admiral.  I had the great fortune of growing up when the greatest NBA players of all time were almost all playing simultaneously.  That's an exaggeration, but a whole bunch of them were.  Robinson was my favorite.  Fantastic guy.  Dominant.  I used to wear around a t-shirt with him on the front that said, "David Robinson: the Quickest Big Man to Ever Play the Game."  Might just be true.  Either him or Hakeem.

2. Ken Griffey, Jr.  It was nearly impossible to make him 2 rather than 1b.  But that's just cheating.  I like football more, so Griffey gets the #2 spot.  If he hadn't gotten injured so much he'd have the HR record and would have been clean getting it.  He is responsible for making me a Mariners fan.  I used to have about 150 of his cards.

1. Barry Sanders.  Greatest RB of all time.  Hands down.  Sterling Sharp once said that if Barry Sanders had Emmitt Smith's offensive line he would rush for 3000 yards per season.  He was that great.  And once again - a great man who has done a lot in the city of Detroit both during his playing days and after.  There will never be another like him.

I'm sure I'm missing a couple that I'll kick myself later for not adding.  I think just as much fun as, if not more fun than, making this list would be making a list of players I most disliked.  That list could get far too long, though, so I'll refrain.

Christian Ethics and Athletic Violence

It's a dreary, rainy, cold-ish Saturday here in Montana. While this is a disappointing state of affairs, it does offer me a chance to blog a little (assuming I'm able to keep myself away from a little addiction we like to call “Minecraft”).  This is longer than a typical blog post, but in order to do the subject justice that's a necessary evil.

Today we explore a particular aspect of Christian ethics that is very dear to my heart – the ethics of sport. Not exactly the most common ethical issue discussed these days, but I think it's important and it's apparently important enough that Philosophia Christi did a symposium on it a while back. I've been meaning to address it for a while now and today just seems like a good time to do so.

Prior to reading this blog, I highly recommend reading the symposium, which can be found here.

The question is this: are any sports morally superior to others? Or perhaps more to the point: should Christians avoid any sports due to conflicts with Christian ethics created by that sport. In the symposium one author (Matthew Roberts) takes a soft view against violent sports like football or rugby, saying that due to potential vices created in both their competitors and fans the virtues of the sports are probably outweighed. Another author (Doug Groothuis) is more explicit in his rejection of violent sports, saying, “Given the formal deficiencies and defects of football, one ought not play it or coach it or watch it or own it or support it (through stadium taxes, etc.). Football reinforces and perpetuates the culture of violence, which must be resisted in every form if we are to regain a measure of sanity and civility in our increasingly violent world.” Michael Austin addresses some of the concerns raised by Roberts and Groothuis, but I think I'd like to address them a bit further.

I want to first take issue with some smaller points made mostly by Groothuis before moving on to the larger point that I think both Groothuis and Roberts err on.  

Groothuis' paper was not worthy of publication in any philosophy journal anywhere.  Throughout the paper he demonstrated quite effectively his lack of knowledge of the subject matter.  Groothuis chose to write his paper before performing a simple Google search to see if there may have been an entire field of philosophy that he was unaware of.  Seriously - go to Google, then search for "philosophy" and "sports" and see what comes up.  Academic journals, books, academic societies, even (as Austin points out in response) a journal specifically for the ethical aspects - all dealing in the philosophy of sport.  How this paper got published I'll never know.  

Beyond that, Groothuis just doesn't know anything about the game of football.  He says:

"Historically, intellectuals have been drawn to write and reflect on baseball. A recent example is columnist and author, George Will. I doubt there is anything of this nature to be said of football. (This, of course, does not imply that no intellectuals like football or than only unintelligent people do.)"

First, given the parenthetical, then what's his point?  Second, this is just stupid.  How does one define an "intellectual"?   Does he not consider the fellow philosophers who wrote "Football and Philosophy: Going Deep" intellectuals?  I've seen Groothuis cite Alvin Plantinga in his own work - Plantinga, of course, has made it known that he is a Notre Dame football fan.  President Obama has been ripped by certain detractors for being too much of an intellectual and not enough of a realist, and he's a big Chicago Bears fan.  The fact that George Will and John Roberts prefer baseball to football is in no way a knock on football's intellectual virtues.  

When's the last time a baseball player was seen doing this?

But further on the intellectual aspects of football, in no other sport are schemes and plays more complex than in football.  11 men working in unison to achieve a common goal, often with the intent of first convincing 11 other men that they are trying to achieve a different goal (in the case of counters or screens or play-action).  Before every play (particularly at the professional level) players are required to assess the other team in order to figure out what they plan to do prior to them even doing it.  Mike Leach, head coach for Texas Tech, claims to watch 30 hours of game film each week in preparation for a game just to compete in the intellectual aspects of the game.  NFL players are required to know their playbooks inside and out - some of these playbooks are 800 pages - all have their own unique vocabulary ("flip right, double-X, Jet, 36 counter, naked waggle, X-7, X-quarter" represents one offensive play-call in the NFL according to Jon Gruden).

Groothuis and Roberts both make the point that fans celebrate the violence of the sport, which promotes vice in the fans.  I would argue that this is not true in most cases.  Most football fans do not enjoy seeing grotesque injuries or concussions or the like.  Sure, we like good, solid, legal hits, but we don't want to see injuries and illegal hits.  I've despised the Vikings my whole life, but when Adrian Peterson injured his knee I neither enjoyed it nor was happy it happened.  When ESPN shows football highlights, 90% of them center around well-executed football, often involving no violence at all (in the case of touchdowns, where the defense failed to create violence).  Highlight videos like the one I link to below wouldn't exist if it were the violence the fans celebrated.

Last on the smaller points, Groothuis has the cajones to say that baseball is not only intellectually and morally superior to football, but that it is aesthetically superior as well.  He says:

"Baseball is intellectually superior to football, because of the degree of strategy, finesse, and intelligence required to play it well. Football knows of many plays and patterns, but most of them reduce to speed, strength, and coordination--as opposed to intelligence. In baseball, a pitcher with less than a cannon arm (such as Greg Maddox) can be one of the best pitchers in baseball in light of his intelligence in pitch selection, control, knowledge of batters, and fielding ability."

He later says:

"Both baseball and football require athletic skill for their performance, but I venture to say that an expertly turned double-play, a diving catch in the outfield, or a deftly stolen base (particularly of home) demonstrates more athletic and aesthetic excellence than anything in football. Moreover, nothing in any sport has the dramatic effect of a grand slam home run, especially in a close game."

Again, I have no idea how this paper got published.  Greg Maddox was able to pitch the way he did because he was smart, yes, but also because he had an INCREDIBLE amount of coordination and was able to do things physically with his wrists, fingers, and shoulders that most humans cannot.  There is a very good reason that Maddox is also a scratch golfer and it is not that he lacks pure, raw, physical ability.  What is the difference between good pitch selection and a proper play call or audible in football?  Is there any difference in terms of the mental demand?  What about "fielding ability" in baseball screams that it doesn't come down to "speed, strength, and coordination"?

I can appreciate that a double-play can be aesthetically pleasing.  But really?  A stolen base?  It's a dude running from one base to another.  I'm as big a baseball fan as most people, but let's be realistic - would anyone on this planet (other than Ricky Henderson's mom) rather watch a highlight reel of all of Ricky Henderson's stolen bases than this highlight reel of Barry Sanders' runs?

Ok - enough with the stupid stuff.  I actually lost a bit of respect for Groothuis as a philosopher after reading this paper.  Moving on.


Both Roberts and Groothuis agree on the main objection to football: its violent nature. Roberts lists collisions in football equaling 1600 lbs of force, concussions, ACL tears, etc.  These are seen as bads.  Not only are they bads, but they are the result of violence: a bad that is intrinsic to the game of football.  When violence and its resulting injuries happen in basketball or baseball, the bads are contingent bads, which is to say that the sports can be (and regularly are) played without the bads occurring.  The same cannot be said of football.  Furthermore, the sport promotes vice in its fans, who are taught to celebrate this violence, and thus to celebrate bads.

The thing I find odd is that Groothuis says, "[f]ootball reinforces and perpetuates the culture of violence, which must be resisted in every form if we are to regain a measure of sanity and civility in our increasingly violent world."  In every form?  What about, say, in the context of a Just War?  


"The killing of any creature in God's image, no matter how debased that creature may be, is a mournful thing. Osama deserved death, and received it in a just war; however, it is tragic that a man would dedicate his life to evil and receive the penalty of death for his earthly sin." - Douglas Groothuis

But wait...wasn't...wasn't that Groothuis supporting violence given that it was of a particular type in a particular situation?  So maybe the Christian doesn't have to oppose EVERY form of violence, as he says in the paper.   In their papers both Groothuis and Roberts seem to assume that all violence is bad in some moral sense.  They assume that all violence is created equal.

I would argue that this is mistaken, even (especially?) on the Christian worldview.  Biblically, Old Testament characters participated in many, many violent acts and were praised for them later in the New Testament.  Obviously there will be some who follow thinkers like Yoder, Hays, or Hauerwas out there who say the N.T. ethic changed and promotes peace exclusively.  To that I will respond by pointing out that the Hays/Hauerwas notion of N.T. ethics also would prohibit Christians from participating in the military or even the police - it is an ethic of radical non-violence (Hays goes as far as to compare military recruiters to prostitutes).  You really want to go that route?  

But the more pertinent point is from the N.T. itself.  In Acts 10, Peter is called by God via a vision to go meet with a Roman Centurion named Cornelius.  Throughout the course of the story, Peter comes to the understanding that gentiles should be accepted into the Christian community the same as Jews.  Luke takes care to praise Cornelius as being an upstanding man.  At no point in the narrative does either Luke or Peter (as recorded by Luke) criticize Cornelius for being a military man.  Keep in mind that he was a Roman soldier - this means that in all likelihood any war he would be called by his profession to fight would not have been a just one.  Peter didn't see this as even being important enough to mention - he was just happy to accept him into the Christian community.  Luke again in Luke 3:14 tells of a group of recently-baptized soldiers who were told by John the Baptist now that they are Christians they should "[not] extort money and don't accuse people falsely - be content with your pay."  No mention of anything being wrong with their profession or the violence it requires.

So it's fair to think the Christian is at least warranted in thinking that not all violence is a bad.  So there must be something about violence that makes it bad.  What is it?  Well, I would argue that it has something to do with causing needless harm to creatures created with the imago dei.  Certainly hunting (esp. for survival) isn't morally wrong.  But it is violent and it does cause them harm.  But they don't have the imago dei, so it's ok.  So the issue at hand has to come down to the question of whether or not football causes needless harm to its human participants (excluding Gus, Bonzo, and Air Bud).

No one knows if concussions contributed to Seau's suicide

Recently there has been a ton of concern over concussions in the NFL, especially in the wake of the suicides of three former NFL players (Junior Seau, Ray Easterling, and Dave Duerson).  While it is certainly true that the harm from concussions is considerably more than what we used to think, I think it's hard, based purely on that fact to think that the game causes more physical harm than good.  

Consider this study, commissioned by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, on the health of former NFL players.  In a survey of 3439 former NFL players, it was estimated (based on numbers from the general population) that 625 would be deceased.  Only 334 were in fact deceased.  That's about 53% of what would have been the case if the health of retired NFL players was even average, much less below average.  The conclusion has to be that all that time of eating right and working out an extraordinary amount in order to be able to handle the physical toll of the sport actually makes players healthier on the whole.  At the very, very least this should mitigate any perceived bad in the violence.  I would argue that since the result of the game makes players healthier it cannot be seen generally as causing needless harm to its participants and thus cannot be considered a bad at all.

This argument can (and should) be applied to any violent sport when discussed from an ethical standpoint.  MMA is probably the most controversial in this respect right now.  A new documentary (below) is in the process of being made about the convergence of faith and MMA.  Many MMA fighters at the highest level are professing Christians (Jon Jones and Benson Henderson are both outspoken Christians and the champions of their respective weight classes).  Given the extreme conditioning that goes in to this sport, in the long-run it participants are likely to be healthier for having competed than they would be had they not.  If my definition of "bad violence" is right, then MMA should be perfectly acceptable on the Christian ethical worldview as well as football, rugby, or virtually any other "violent" sport.

If Groothuis and Roberts want their points based on the violence of the game to hold up they must first provide a working definition of a "bad", then make one of "bad violence".  Until that happens, and they provide a good reason to prefer those definitions over mine, all arguments about anything inherent in the game promoting vice in either the players or the fans are moot.  Christians should feel comfortable coming home from church on Sunday and watching football...all day long.

The Tim Tebow Kerfuffle

Several days ago, I mentioned the Tim Tebow Kerfuffle in passing.  At that time the news was still new and the story hadn't yet gotten out of hand.  Now it has.  The National Organization for Women (NOW) has officially called his forthcoming pro-life Super Bowl ad "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning."  Umm...did I mention that the ad has not yet been released?  To anyone?  Including NOW?

We are given a couple hints as to what is in the video.  Focus on the Family says the theme of the ad is "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life".  That is pretty offensive.

Tebow has come under fire from members of the sports media as well.  Both Doug Gottlieb and Tim Keown (both of ESPN) have been critical of Tebow's alignment of himself with James Dobson.

Well, I thought I would pass along an article that puts the Tebow issue in excellent perspective (tip o' the hat to Southern Appeal for the story).  This article is written by a fairly well-known sportswriter named Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post.  Ms. Jenkins is both pro-choice and a feminist...and she wholeheartedly supports the Tebow ad.  One highlight:


        "As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.
         I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
        Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical."


And that isn't all.  I highly recommend reading this if you have 5 minutes on your hands.  Here is the link to the rest of the article.  Read it.  It's good.


Oh, and by the way - let's not pretend that this is the first time famous athletes have chimed in on the topic of abortion.  Have a look at this video from 1989:




Believe it or not, there is actually a whole organization for professional athletes (mostly former) that count themselves as pro-life called Life Athletes.  Here are some of the notables:

Steve Largent, Rebecca Lobo, Don Beebe, Wellington Mara (RIP), Curtis Martin, Kevin Mawae, Derrick Brooks, Mark Brunell, Matt Millen, Gary Carter, Trot Nixon, Trent Dilfer, Dan Reeves, Tony Dungy, Joe Gibbs, A.C. Green, Jason Hanson, Phil Simms, Mike Singletary, Brent Jones, Justin Tuck, David Tyree, Jon Kitna, Herschel Walker, Reggie White (RIP), Steve Wisniewski

Breaking News: The Detroit Lions are Not in the Super Bowl

Well, it's official - the Saints are going to the Super Bowl.  The Saints, as many of you know, were one of only 5 teams in the NFL that had never attended a Super Bowl.  This leaves the Lions, the Browns, the Jaguars, and the Texans as the only remaining teams to have never been to a Super Bowl.  Of these teams, the Lions plight is certainly the worst.  Why?  Here goes:

The Jaguars are a relatively new team, since they were an expansion team from 1994.  During their existence they've already been to the AFC Championship game twice, which means they've gone to the AFC Championship twice during the time since the Lions' last appearance.

The Browns have not been to an AFC Championship game since 1986, where they lost to Elway and "The Drive".....technically.  I qualify that with "technically" because this doesn't tell the whole story.  Let's not forget that in 1996 the Browns moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens.  That same team that moved to Baltimore not only went to, but won the Super Bowl in 2000.  The Browns that exist in Cleveland now are an expansion team that has only even been in existence since 1999.

The Texans have only been in existence in 2002, so who really gives a crap that they've never been to the Super Bowl?

The Lions, on the other hand, have been a continuous franchise for the duration of the time that the Super Bowl has existed.  They've only even been to the NFC Championship game one time since the Super Bowl's inception.  Given the above information, is there any question that the Lions are more due than anyone left?

I remember back in the 80's and 90's when the perennial bottom feeders of the league were teams like the Patriots, the Bucs, and the Saints.  Since then two of those teams have Super Bowls (one of which created a full dynasty), and the third is on its way there for the first time now.

I ask this: is there ANY team that is more due than the Detroit Lions now that the Saints are going?  Absolutely not.  So much has been said about how great this is for the city of New Orleans - the great story it has made post-Katrina, etc.  True.  However, if I were to ask what city, other than New Orleans, has suffered the most in the last couple years is there any doubt that it is Detroit?  I'm not sayin'.....I'm just sayin'.